🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:20:10 UTC No. 16204919
Does anyone else find the concept of scientific referencing a bit laughable?
Lets say you open up a random scientific article. The author says something and then puts a funny superscript or perhaps brackets, followed by a number, e.g. [3]. At the end of the paper there is a list of these funny numbers along with some relevant information like "authors", "publishing journal" and "title. This is supposed to build "science" even though your research itself already proves if your stuff works.
>reader of this article will absolutely not read the [3] but just move past this funny superscript. He wouldn't have access to [3] anyway, because it is paywalled, dates back to the 1920s, or the paper doesn't explicitly say in which part it says so
>author of the article himself probably only skimmed [3] and doesn't have any deeper understanding of it, and he probably only put [3] in there to build his own ego
>[3] probably only mentions something similar to what was referenced, but it is CERTAINLY not the entire topic of that paper, and most of the times not the original inventor of the statement
>even if [3] happens to mention that statement, [3] relies on 50-100 other references. Reader and author never read through these 50-100 other references
>supposedly everyone does their job and does some READING... but nobody will in the history of the universe try to replicate the results of any of these papers. Most of the results were made by one person in USA in 1974 or in some gigantic Institute of China
>it is never explicitly mentioned if [3] is the only and first paper that says this, or if others post different results
>the references like [3] are referenced over and over again, even though they probably already has been generalized or expanded by further research/literature
>it is very important who the author of the papers, and from which university/institute, and who is the publishing journal. but professors just throw their name on 80 papers a year
Boo-ker at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:26:31 UTC No. 16204924
This thread was so stupid, this paradox has occured. Retards everywhere become more retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:37:41 UTC No. 16204931
>>16204919
Is a jew system made by jews for jews, all fucked up like the patent system: useless.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:51:50 UTC No. 16204947
>>16204919
Easy. Don't cite any publications that you haven't actually read
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:07:33 UTC No. 16204966
>>16204919
It's useful for your niche. If you were an expert publishing studies in a specific field you would be aware of all the past research done and might even know the researchers personally. To an outsider it seems like a labyrinth but people on the 'in' know what's going on inside their niche and what papers to reference. It's still useful to reference every statement because incorrect information can be traced back to certain sources. It lets people see whether your study is even based on valid research. You can't just write
>It's been shown people who drive red cars are more prone to road rage.
in your paper without referencing where that came from, especially if your study relies on that fact. People reading your paper can't go backwards and verify that statement, meaning they can't tell if your paper is based on shit therefore is shit itself.
It also gives credit and attention to past researchers. Imagine if someone wrote about your work without even referencing you
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:13:34 UTC No. 16204974
>>16204919
>He wouldn't have access to [3] anyway
Stopped reading. If you're a student or scientist, you already have access through your university or research institution. What makes you think you have the insight to criticize scientific literature as a non-researcher, frogposter?